What is a temporary restraining order, such as the one issued in federal court in Boston regarding the president’s immigration ban?

A temporary restraining order can be granted by a judge in a civil dispute to either immediately stop something from happening, or to order it to continue.

The duration of the order typically lasts about seven to 10 days until a judge can hold a hearing to consider arguments and evidence on both sides. Then, a judge can issue a longer-lasting order, called a preliminary injunction, until the full civil proceeding can be carried out.

In Boston, Magistrate Judge Judith Dein and US District Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued a restraining order that will last seven days, though the judges said they will hold a hearing before the order expires.

What are the standards for an immediate restraining order?

Before issuing an order, a judge must consider several factors, specifically that the requesting party has a high likelihood of eventual success in court; that the people at issue are likely to suffer irreparable harm if the judge does not intervene; that there is a public interest in granting the order; and that all factors the judge weighs balance in favor of issuing a permanent order.

Howard Cooper, a Boston-based lawyer, compared the legal arguments to a decision to stop a wrecking ball before it demolishes a building, if the demolition of a building is controversial.

What happened in Boston?

Burroughs and Dein found in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union and lawyers for immigrants, agreeing that they met the threshold for a restraining order. The judges ordered government officials to maintain immigration processes in place before President Trump’s executive order.

The judges’ decision also prevented officials from detaining or deporting refugees whose applications have been approved, or holders of valid immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, lawful permanent residents, and others from certain countries who otherwise would be legally authorized to enter the United States.

Under the court order, Customs and Border Protection agents must notify airlines that have flights arriving at Logan Airport of the order and the fact that individuals on those flights will not be detained or returned to their countries because of Trump’s earlier executive order.

What kind of reach does the Boston order have?

Civil rights groups believe the restraining order issued in Boston applies nationally because it names Trump as a defendant. The ruling mentions flights specifically landing at Logan Airport, however, and legal analysts said that it is unclear whether a customs agent at an airport in San Francisco would be legally bound by Burroughs’s ruling.

But legal analysts said civil liberties groups can now cite the legal justifications mentioned in the Boston ruling in seeking similar rulings across the country. “I think what the ACLU and the national immigrants’ rights organizations are saying is that they asked for broad relief against the government and the decisions should have national implications,’’ Cooper said.

How many rulings can there be?

On developing legal controversies, parties can file lawsuits in federal districts throughout the country, and the litigation can proceed simultaneously. However, if different courts begin to interpret the plaintiffs’ requests differently, then they can appeal to regional appellate courts, known as circuit courts. The regional appeals court in Boston oversees Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Puerto Rico.

If circuit courts interpret the issue differently, the US Supreme Court could be urged to immediately take up the issue. William Fick, a lawyer with the law firm Fick and Marx, added that the decision in Boston was broader than others across the country in that it not only halted deportations from Logan, but also prohibited the detention of immigrants who otherwise would have been allowed into the country.

Also, it orders Customs and Border Protection agents to notify airlines of the court decision. “These facets make this order unique among others across the country,’’ he said. “It delivers more in providing relief to the people who have been subjected to the order.’’

How is the order enforced?

The Boston decision specifically calls on the US Marshals Service, which often works as an enforcement mechanism for the courts, to make sure government officials such as Customs and Border Protection agents comply with the order. If officials refuse to comply, they can be held in contempt. But, “You don’t frequently find government actors in contempt of court. That’s rare,’’ Fick said.

What might the response from the Trump administration look like?

Trump officials have argued that the law does not specifically ban Muslims from the country, and that it was intended as a national security measure.

But legal analysts argue that the nations listed are predominantly Muslim, and so it is easy to interpret the intention of the executive order to be discriminatory. Also, Trump said publicly that exemptions would be made for Christians from those countries.

Cooper said there can be multiple legal arguments to be made, including the argument that people who are being subjected to the order had their status changed without due process.

However, he also argued that it will be easy to make the argument that the executive order discriminates based on religion and nation of origin.

“That will really frame the issues here. You look at the language of something like this and also how it gets applied, and when the case gets litigated that’s going to be the crux.’’

Milton J. Valencia can be reached at Milton.Valencia-@globe.com.